We all talk about brands. We wear them, drive them, eat them, admire them. Everything we do and experience today is a ‘brand experience’ it seems. Sectors and activities have embraced the concept of branding at different rates. FMCG led the way when brands were typically products on the shelf differentiated by packaging. Retailers then realised they were brands not just names and labels and branding then became an experience – involving people, processes, environments and products. This was the fundamental transition of branding from packaging to become an operational culture and management approach. Banks belatedly discovered they had customers to please and are still struggling to understanding how they can be first choice brands. Sadly the real estate sector still generally do not see ‘branding’ as an integral management principle.

Shopping centres are destination brands. They are an umbrella brand for the diverse retailer and service brands they represent and ‘manage’. You would think real estate professionals should then understand the importance of developing the brand equity of their portfolios and projects. This is not the case. They appear to live in a world of tangible measurement and valuations based on yields, rentals, income from commercialisation, etc. They avoid understanding the value of the potentially more intangible activities involving brand building initiatives.

As an architect and brand consultant I have never viewed branding as simply a ‘packaging’ / marketing activity. The architecture and design of a place brand whether a city, district, street, shopping centre or business centre, residential or office is the most expensive but ultimately most influential factor in the sellable brand equity of the development. But still we are typically called in to ‘brand’ a centre already in design or existing by investors who still think branding is simply a ‘badging’, corporate identity exercise supported by marketing activities.

Branding is reputation management. Reputation today is less about the traditional marketing of promises and all about the reality of the experience and what people say about you. Social media is about riding the tiger …. great but tough when it bites you. A business or shopping centre is a business brand and a consumer brand. As a business brand you are measured by the tenants, staff and partners you want to attract and already have. As a consumer brand for business centres, the audiences/stakeholders are the management and employees of the tenant companies. For shopping venues, the audiences are shoppers and visitors, the local community and interest groups. Each audience needs their vested interests satisfied. Matching the needs of pension fund managers and aspirational shoppers is always going to be a balancing act. There is now a blurring between B to B and B to C communications as CSR and sustainability become issues for public debate.

A clear brand proposition and ethos should be the basis for all decisions and action. Everyone wants best value but a long term reputation development can be ruined by a short term tactical initiative to drive footfall or sales. The marketing of centres is still catching up retailer marketing skills. Driving footfall but not helping retailer sales is a typical issue and in the end the capital value of any development is based on sales in the shops. Obvious stuff but investors and developers still don’t apparently see the direct link between brand reputation development and prefer to concentrate efforts on their comfort areas of direct income. Putting in another kiosk rather than some seating is a classic test of a trading or operational mindset. Do you potentially make a shopper stay longer and return another day, or prioritise ‘measurable’ income from a rental space. While belatedly centre manager have talked about being partners of their tenants the mindset can still be as a landlord / facility manager.

We use the term intelligent asset management to drive home the idea that branding must be seen as a fundamental component of real estate development activities from project inception to long term management. An organisation’s internal brand culture is now recognised as a key differentiator influencing the behaviour, efficiency and success of their activities. The complexity of the different parties involved in design and managing real estate demands an alignment and agreement of interests. As in all sectors those that get it will be winners.

Interestingly our work in a BRIC economy like Russia has allowed us to bypass these traditional mentalities and ways of dong things. One advantage is a single owner of a development who can make the decisions necessary. Asking us to provide a brand vision for the development as a brief for the architects whether local or international means the image, themes and positioning become an integral driving idea for the site and building and interior planning and design. We can then provide a distinctive marketing platform to build the centre brand pre-launch and achieve long term sustainable advantage.

In Europe, branding is still often relegated to a brand identity, signage, some graphics and marketing brochure provided by a marketing agency. Moscow has many shopping centres, many built without a clear strategy or mindful of tenant requirements but the growing need for effective differentiation means standards are changing fast and our broad approach to branding is increasingly understood.

Traditionally looking to the west for best practice was typical, perhaps the west could start learning from the East soon!

As a branding and design consultant I am highly aware of the pressures forcing us all to keep ahead of changing market trends. Some areas of design are potentially becoming a commodity with everyone it seems providing ‘design’, whether printers or shopfitters, for example, and more accessible technology enabling individuals to design their own web sites, create their own brochures, etc. Designers need to constantly re-evaluate what they offer and how to stay relevant to fast changing client needs.

Design means change but surprisingly some designers, agencies and consultants find this difficult when the issue is applied to themselves.

One example is the way we design. The trend for increasing internet retailing and digital media is changing the way designers need to think about concept visual development. The era of translating static corporate identities, visual design signatures and branded environments to web communication and screen technology is now potentially in reverse. Designing for animation and the dynamic morphing of visual brand concepts can now become the leading design idea and key brand touchpoint. How this translates to static print, signage and environments then becomes the secondary priority.

This creates interesting challenges for designers trained in classic corporate identity and branding, steeped in the nuances of script, typefaces, graphics and interior design. The next generation of future designers born with a screen in their hand and reared on dynamic imagery from birth must change traditional ways of thinking and designing. The same is happening for marketing professionals coming to terms with the challenges of social media, which is transforming the roles of advertising agencies and the media spend priorities of corporations grappling with the age of instant access and engagement.

The world of design covers a vast range of skills and disciplines with the common link of creativity and innovation. Commercial design, by definition, must meet strategic business criteria. Unfortunately too often ‘creatives’ are seen as the cosmetic guys - dealing with the ‘soft’ emotional and un-measurable aspects of modern business life whether in marketing and communications, or the more tangible design area of architecture, environment design, graphics, corporate identity and product design.

Ultimately design is measured by ‘fitness for purpose’. As an architect I was educated in the ‘form follows function’ school. I still believe this but the functions become more complex. Meeting emotional needs of image, taste and pleasure and the operational criteria of efficiency, cost and time is the true test of any design. Unfortunately in the business world the comfort zones of management tend to be the ‘measurable’ aspects of cost and time. While most managements acknowledge the need to develop their products and services as ‘brands’ and differentiated ‘brand experiences’ they have difficulty in dealing with the creative world of agencies and consultants who sell ‘branding’. I have some sympathy as the conflicting advice and services of branding and design specialists is so often based on the education discipline of the individuals concerned and can typically range from advertising agencies to management consultancies.

I would like to believe architects should be seen as prime movers in change management. Designing buildings, public spaces and creating relevant places that people want to use, experience and enjoy is a key function of good design. This means change ideally to better solutions, environments and activities. Changing the way people think and act however demands the best skills in communications and combination of emotional and rational intelligence.

An increasingly vital aspect of modern business life is creating a positively differentiated internal company culture. I am increasingly asked to provide talks on the importance of Employer Branding – developing the reputation and image of a company as a ‘first choice’ place to work. In terms of measurability the true costs of staff turnover, loss of management experience, the sheer inefficiency of department silo mentality and de-motivated employees are potentially enormous. The calibre and attitude of customer facing staff is now a key differentiation factor for companies. The effect on sales and the overall company brand equity cannot be overestimated.

In a competitive world of uncertainty, mergers and acquisitions, changing offers and job functions it becomes critical to attract and retain the best staff. Staff centricity should be as important as the standard corporate mantra of customer centricity. Management culture in some developing (as well as so-called developed) markets can be dire but the potential for creating a synergy between external marketing and services and internal communication and environments, is starting to be understood.

The shortage of qualified experienced staff in BRIC economies means poaching is endemic and creates management ambivalence to an investment in training. There are signs that indicate this vicious circle is ending and we see the development of differentiated brand cultures becoming a key future trend and management priority.

The creative sector should be in the forefront of these new aspirations given the need for innovative workplace environments and effective communication across increasingly diverse organisations and working patterns. Workplace design should reflect the company ethos and locality particularly for international operations. Setting a corporate look that must be the same worldwide immediately ignores the fact different cultures, markets and countries look and feel differently about design, colour and imagery. Capturing a company essence and translating to a local mindset is a fascinating challenge but worthwhile to avoid a cloned corporate look disseminated from a remote head office. However, these emotional criteria need to be balanced with practical operational criteria to be cost effective, easily implemented and managed to achieve appropriate consistency and quality. So design functionality needs to meet both the emotional requirement to reflect local mindsets, aspirations and achieve engagement together with the need for satisfying all department agendas, HR and marketing as well as real estate and finance directors!

Designers by definition should be constantly embracing change and new roles but can be reluctant to move on from the comfort zone of their original training. Today, more than ever, a consistent reality for anyone involved in design in the future is that the winners will be those who recognise and are ready to meet the challenges of managing creative change. A key attribute will be the willingness to embrace and collaborate with a range of like-minded expertise to ensure optimum solutions in order to meet and exceed all expectations.

As someone from the ‘developed’ markets of the west, speaking at conferences and working in so called ‘emerging’ economies, I sometimes wonder if commentators should, not unreasonably, refer to our ‘developed’ markets of the west as ‘submerging’ economies! The ongoing media frenzied reporting on the Eurozone problems and general indebted state of the US and the west compared to the East hardly inspires confidence.

As international consultants our ‘added value’ is that we should be able to advise fast developing economies on how to avoid and learn from our mistakes and failures as well as from best international and UK practice. It seems to me patronising terms as ‘emerging’ can be unhelpful for all parties. A bit more emphasis on ‘merging’ knowledge and approaches would be more appropriate. I am frequently told that new concepts will not work in a particular country because ‘its different here’. Frankly this is rarely the case as people’s desires and expectations are pretty similar in wanting more for less, convenience, a pleasant experience, quality, service, etc and people are willing to change the habits of a lifetime for something that is clearly ‘better’ in satisfying needs and aspirations. Certainly economies and societies that are able to adopt latest practices, technology and thinking do not merit an ‘emerging’ tag perception when directly compared to economies weighed down with the baggage of out of date investments and thinking.

For new markets, the financial crisis was a sharp lesson for the complacent and exposed unstrategic thinking and practices developed in an easy fast growth environment. The new reality served as a catalyst for the more progressive managements to take advantage of their weaker competition. Retailers and developers globally are having to face accelerated changes enabled by the internet and social media. Multi-channel and online retailing is changing the way people shop. So listening to an East European developer plan for yet another new mall in a city already well serviced by shopping centres was scary. The assumption was just more of the same for a market that could be significantly changed by the time the complex was to be completed in three years. It seems the lessons in Europe, where empty malls are being increasingly cannibalised by large regional centres are being ignored.

Centre owners and investors need to rethink how their assets can adapt to a new retail order. Centres and their tenants need to create experiences rather than simply facilitating shopping. Retail therapy is now less about product consumption and more about lifestyle, entertainment and leisure providing the key drivers to draw visitors. The implications for marketing, architecture, tenant mix, services and facilities are significant. I am concerned that some western consultants who should know better are still selling concepts that will be out of date before they are built with highly dubious sustainability credentials in the widest sense taking into account environmental, social and community issues and impacts. If future proofing credentials are based on PR about recycling ‘grey’ water it becomes simply ‘green wash’ if the development has dubious effects on the cities resources, energy consumption, environmental impact, traffic infrastructure, local traders, residents etc.

Viewing empty malls in India or the UK is a reminder whether we are emerging, submerging or just ‘floating’ economies, the basics of supply and demand apply and we can all learn lessons from each other. New markets can avoid the limited thinking that can be ingrained in traditional ways of doing things. In our experience they can accept change and move faster and more effectively when managements are open to new ideas and approaches. This brings responsibilities and problems. The shortage of local expert experience means organisations are vulnerable to management and staff poaching. We are increasingly advising our clients to address their employer brand development and proactively face the challenges of attracting and retaining the best people. Developing a positively differentiated internal brand culture needs to be synchronised with the customer facing marketing, communications and environment experience i.e. a synergy of staff and consumer centricity.

This next generation of employer brand development is an interesting test of bringing together best practice western thinking to the culture of companies in countries where the concepts of empowerment, meritocracy and supportive management are not readily embraced equally by staff or management. This is certainly an area where the lessons and experiences of ‘old’ economies can represent a valuable trade export to emerging or emerged markets to achieve better performance, efficiency and value from their operations. Every culture whichever side of the world and economic state that thinks it does not need to keep learning and take advice has surely missed the point.

Speaking at a DIY conference in Moscow recently I was reminded how retail and service sectors seem to move at different rates when it comes to understanding the importance and need for an effective brand strategy.  FMCG led the way in developing strong product brands. On a competitive shelf space distinctive memorable packaging was seen as a vital asset to trigger sales.  This led to the unfortunate general misconception that branding was ultimately simply a marketing and packaging exercise for a company’s visual media.  Fast forward and while now there is a general awareness than branding involves an organisation’s ethos, values and behaviour, there is still the lingering perception that brand development is basically a marketing activity.

The biggest challenge for any brand strategy is achieving positive differentiation, the core reason for brand development.  Sexy brands like Apple and luxury fashion are too often quoted in presentations on branding.  We are told we must ‘love’ a brand for it to be a market success. But many offers are unsexy – I will never ‘love’ Tesco or my bank or a company that sells nails and drills but I can feel trust and assurance or just plain satisfaction regarding a convenient efficient offer and service.

Food and fashion retailers learnt from FMCG that developing their own brand profile and equity was vital in a competitive market and the battle between own brand and manufacture brands is a fascinating dynamic in the fight for achieving the best customer centricity.  Somewhat later banks started to discover they had customers who needed to be satisfied and adapted latest branding techniques to differentiate their usually virtually identical offers.  Services and people then became key differentiating brand attributes to create the desired first choice brand experience. 

The need to achieve consistent image and service standards across every format, channel and brand ‘touchpoint’ is an ongoing challenge for all organisations under the increasing scrutiny of social media.  Interested  audiences and potential customers can now make or break brand reputations online either as brand ambassadors or terrorists but are now the accepted major essential driving force in achieving loyalty and sales.

So, back to DIY and you have to question why this sector is still grappling to understand the principles of successful branding i.e. a truly customer centric offer that meets the rational and emotional needs of the target audiences.  The Moscow conference issues – how to attract women, how to compete with specialists, the grocers, fashion and lifestyle retailers, create seamless multi-channel experiences have been talked about for at least the last ten years.  But the sector has been slow to change.  I suspect complacency and comfort zone resistance but I understand the problems – balancing the hard and soft trade, accepting DIY is for most a distress purchase not a pleasure, competing with homing specialists and the logistic capability of the major grocery chains are tough challenges.  As a consultant however, I see often a culture problem – talking about innovation and customer service but still accepting the norm of confusing sheds with lines of impenetrable products, poor service and lack of accessible inspiring solutions.

I must admit as an architect and DIY enthusiast I am fascinated by DIY and frustrated the retailers involved often can not seem to understand how to better attract enthusiasts like me as well as the majority of consumers who just want to find the right product quickly, relevant information, advice and ideas.

No one said it would be easy and DIY is an unfortunate potentially limiting description of the sector.  Home centres and ‘homing’ can be equally confusing as too broad a generic. You have to become known for something unique and desirable for your target audiences – constantly developing your tangible and emotional brand attributes. DIY retailers need to learn from the other consumer sectors, not to be poor ‘me-toos’ but to be trusted brands in their own right.

With the likes of Amazon and the major grocery chains seemingly able to move into any sector, DIY retail has some catching up to do if its is to remain as a separate sector or be swallowed up by more customer centric operations. Portals and communities of interest are replacing retailers as first choice destinations for making buying decisions. Retailers who are still grappling with providing just the basics will have a limited shelf life if they cannot achieve the added value brand perception vital in any competitive marketplace. Hopefully future DIY conferences will be reporting more fast track innovative customer brand experiences soon.

While the ‘b’ word, branding, is now more frequently heard at real estate conferences, there is still the attitude that this is simply about marketing activity and corporate identity usage. The concept of shopping centres or business centres as destination brands with their own distinctive personality and culture is still difficult for building professionals to grasp it seems. Everyone acknowledges the financial value of classic product brands like Coca Cola, where the intangible brand equity far outweighs tangible assets, but the perception persists that the real estate sector is only comfortable with tangible balance sheet valuations of yield and property values. This is odd in that ultimately rentals, service charges and ‘commercialisation’ - that unfortunate word to cover non rental income - depend on optimum customer spend in the case of shopping centres and successful tenants in the case of retail, leisure and business centres.

The connection between a centre’s brand equity (image and reputation) and its sales performance (as a true reflection of its ultimate value and income potential) is not always recognised. Real estate professionals tend to be more comfortable with hard, reliable property valuation rather than ‘softer’ emotional added values cited by branding professionals. Projected sales performance is the key component of brand valuations, but property valuations do not seem to embrace the concept of investing in the vital ‘added values’ that make a destination brand a first choice for its target audiences and users. It is easy to put a value on physical remodelling, less easy for a communications / marketing strategy. In neither case can sales improvement be guaranteed, however property professionals tend to retreat into their known comfort zones. The result is often well designed but soulless ‘shop fitted’ centres that have a complete absence of personality, visitor communication and inspiration. Such centres often fail to create the perception of a destination venue run by management who really care.

Graphic-led treatments, which inspire, inform, create memorable experiences and ambience, and must be seen as part of an overall communication strategy. Nowadays this involves digital screen technology and increasingly sophisticated lighting and projection installations. Software can now control changes in mood, image and content. Architecture becomes the ‘screen’ and stage set for different activities externally and internally. Clearly, property professional courses need to have a module on latest communication strategy and media as an integral part of their studies along with lease, negotiation, valuations, capital cost and maintenance number crunching.

The prevalence of digital screens in every centre also exposes the often complete lack of understanding that these are not just a space to sell as an income stream but potentially key communication ‘touchpoints’ for the centre and visitors. This is a classic test of ‘commercialisation’ – balancing brand profile development ‘cost’ with an operational income opportunity.

The ‘costs’ of advertising, signage and communication are often not normally seen as ‘investment’ as no one can directly measure ‘worth’ short term or long term. The marketing strategy for a centre should balance the long term need for building real brand equity and the short term need to drive sales and footfall. Sadly, short term actions can easily destroy long term credibility and reputation. Footfall is measurable but a poor experience is less easily quantified in terms of the likelihood of a future visit.

As buildings represent the most expensive manifestation of the brand, leveraging this should be a given. Destinations can use their architecture as a brand icon and corporate signature - think Harrods, the O2 Millennium Dome or Wembley Stadium. However, there is still little understanding of the potential for architecture to be a distinctive brand element in providing a memorable signature. Too often, branding becomes a subsequent badging exercise to elevations and building profiles that could have been major brand statements in their own right. That should be the obvious benefit of aligning architecture and branding in terms of visual manifestations. However, branding should be an expression of an organisation’s values and ethos if it is to be more than a cosmetic packaging exercise. Successful architecture, where ‘form follows function’, must meet operational criteria and quantitative, measurable issues – the right spaces, efficient planning and circulation; practicality, durability; capital versus maintenance costs. Architecture must also meet emotional functions – ambience, atmosphere, places that inspire, excite, are interesting and make you feel good. These are the ‘quality’ factors that make a centre memorable and distinctive. They can also make or break the success of a place. In a world of me-too, cloned solutions, tenant mixes and formats, the emotional factors, which can differentiate one centre location from another, become key to creating a distinctive synergy between branding and architecture.

An organisation’s ‘values’ are now transparent. Sustainability has brought into question basic developer activities – environmental impact, effect on the local community and the new, increasingly tangible evaluations – carbon footprint, green materials, local resourcing, maintenance costs – heating and cooling, sourcing and technology. The list gets longer and longer. ‘Green washing’ with token grey water recycling and provision of more cycle racks is not a convincing PR strategy if service costs are seen as exorbitant and local high street shops are going out of business due to a new centre development. Politicians and local interest groups have their own audiences to satisfy and a developer’s history and environmental credential become significant elements in the business brand profile of the centre.

Increasingly the difference between B to B and B to C audiences is becoming blurred. The business face of a centre and its corporate equity and reputation has become an integral part of its consumer brand profile and activities. People now ‘look behind the label’ regarding an organisation’s assertion of sustainability. Any mismatch between claims and behaviour can be easily publicised by interested parties and community trust undermined. The increasing power of social media is something no corporate organisation has learnt to control. Lobby groups create major communities of outraged, upset customers overnight with some effective cut and paste viral communication using Facebook, twitter and You Tube. The old rule applies – ‘do what you say you do’ and respond positively to complaints and black PR. How to say sorry has become a key factor in any branding strategy. Marketing managers now have the potential of leveraging sophisticated software technology to track and interface directly with customers through loyalty cards and phone apps. But they have equally sophisticated consumer controlled technology and media to respond to – who is targeting who?

The property industry has to embrace branding as a key business strategy and management principle – retailers got it many years ago and banks are still struggling to become customer centric by learning from retailers. Surely it is time for property professional and developers to get their act together and leverage ‘branding’ in the fullest sense. The comfort of a balance sheet and its apparent ‘certainties’ will always be more compelling to those who see the world through a property valuation rather than realising the potential brand equity of an asset. Perhaps a Coca Cola centre may help change perception. The brand over the door should create as clear an added value as it does on a bottle. Loyalty is a powerful factor for generating and augmenting revenue. How well does your local Mall measure up against this kind of value? How strong is its equity as a brand destination and experience?

Branding terminology will frequently refer to the importance of creating ‘relationships’ with audiences and users. The danger of words are the underlying assumptions involved. Relationships come in many forms and levels from relative ambivalence to steamy passion and undying loyalty. Brands that think they can get themselves into the upper passion spectrum level tend to be premium luxury emotional offers such as high end cars, jewellery and top fashion. The sad reality for most offers – the more common utility end of the market, is that relationships are based on the less exotic attributes of convenience and familiarity. Trust must be a given, as are good ethics and sustainability credentials.

Loyalty cards aim to tip the balance – if you have to get petrol or food you might as well get some ‘points’ if the accessibility, offer, price and general hassle are about the same. This puts increased pressure on ensuring every possible brand ‘touchpoint’ can result in a positive experience however minor in terms of reinforcing and ideally improving company’s image. Tesco’s ‘every little helps’ is a brilliant encapsulation of such a ‘customer centric’ approach - another easily said retail generic, but difficult to always achieve!

It is particularly worrying when we are told a branding initiative must achieve a ‘wow’ factor. By definition a ‘wow’ reaction is not sustainable in the true sense i.e. from an initial resource investment viewpoint but more importantly maintaining long term impact, relevance and freshness.

Not many relationships however passionate can be sustained if depending on a perpetual ‘wow’ factor. The best long term relationships depend on consistency and care – not taking the other for granted and keeping a relationship fresh. Surely a good mantra for marketers and lovers alike.

Once again I heard a politician talking about innovation and design and inevitably shuddered at the cliché’s on its importance, lack of investment, etc.  Politicians and public services have tried to show their awareness of acting in consumer interests since discussions on market forces and customer choice became acceptable mantra for such bodies and institutions.   

This has provided opportunities for the design industry and the concept of service design in various forms has developed accordingly.  Companies have carefully re-branded their design methodologies despite the fact that ultimately there are clearly generic processes in solving any design challenge and solution development.  However, reading different company’s approaches and philosophies, you are led to believe you have clearly missed something in assuming a good experienced all round designer could help in most cases.  Apparently you need to use specialists in service propositions.  

The design industry has always been adept at recreating itself and repackaging its services.  Originally it was easy, you had specific disciplines defined by an individual’s training.  Whether a product, graphic or interior designer, everyone was clearly labelled to describe their role across different sectors - furniture, print, retail, hotels, residential, exhibitions, etc.  Other creative disciplines such as architecture and advertising equally defined their services with differentiated sector skills and specialisms.  However, market demands and opportunities saw the specific sectors increasingly determining the designer role as a collective offer.  Retail design, for example, became a catch-all expertise demanding a range of skills working together across different disciplines to provide a coordinated offer involving typically physical, digital and communication media creativity.  

Consulting disciplines have become increasingly blurred as the concept of branding as a multi-disciplined organisation activity has developed from its original packaging roots.  Today management consultants, architects, advertising and design agencies can all claim to provide branding consultancy.  Clearly they do but obviously with a limited perspective based on their core skills.  Management consultants are comfortable with figures and measurements of brand equity and potential sales values.  Architects take on graphic designers and claim they then can offer ‘branding’ services to their building developments.  Advertising agencies are comfortable with the marketing and profiling of companies and products but will offer environment design by taking on an interior designer.  Designers similarly offer strategic services, audits and research to enhance their offer.  Corporate identity is an example of a profession which is having to adjust to a changing market.  Some companies still try to market it as a sacred expensive art form and link with other often dubious skills like naming which is often presented as a pseudo scientific process backed up by research processes to provide management insurance policies.  Clients just need to know what they are getting and whether this will be ultimately good for their businesses and organisations, consumers and users.  

All the disciplines - advertising, design, management consulting and architecture inevitably protect their territory by offering the vital generic ‘strategy’.  Unfortunately the use of ‘strategy’ has sometimes become as devalued as the ‘designer’ label prefix to many pretty average products by its inappropriate overuse.  By definition, good commercial design must be strategic, i.e. fulfilling defined functions – practical and emotional.  There is still a stereotype image of design being a more ‘lightweight’ profession given its inability to talk and persuade with pure figures.  Measuring quality, style, image and values is tough for finance directors, councillors  and public services justifying their existence.  Accordingly ‘design’ has been surrounded by lots of strategic words and apparent added value services to provide more credibility.  But ultimately, if the key requirement is to coordinate the wide range of influences that form an ‘experience’ for the customer, user or stakeholders, the essential core skill must be customer centricity – the basis of good retail design.  Balancing the conflicting criteria of branding and operations, image and cost, for example, should be an intrinsic skill to ensure a retailer’s survival and commercial advantage.  

With multi-channel retailing, a broad approach to physical, digital and print design together with human and technical interactions combine to create a wide range of ‘touchpoints’ – those moments of truth that can make or break an image and reputation.  The resulting ‘brand experience’ is the basis of good retail design and yet retail designers are not, it seems, first choice for the new ‘service’ sector clients despite the fact service has become the key differentiator for retailer brands.  This is surprising as Banks have looked to retail and subsequently retail designers to help them become more consumer focused.   Banks discovered they had ‘customers’ rather than accounts some years ago and many embarked on creating a more retail driven philosophy – ‘stores not branches’ was a classic positioning.  Trying not to be a bank has been an interesting trend, just like the estate agents who look more like wine bars than property offices to entice and stroke their customers.  Whether consumers are convinced by such policy is a matter of argument particularly now when banks need to be easy, efficient and trustworthy. More than ever they need to go back to fundamentals and achieve the basics of trust, convenience and ease of use before embarking on perhaps unconvincing charm offences and visit ‘experiences’.  Surely a lesson for some service bodies.  The key point is understanding consumers, and who better than those who have had to do this from day one?  i.e. retail designers.   

In the UK retailers have been using design as a key component in their aim to differentiate their offers for many years.   UK designers have therefore been in demand in countries where such retail skills have become relevant in new economies.  At the same time the service component in design has equally been an integral part of the retail design process through providing appropriate environments and staff support facilities.  This entails the combination of physical design and effective communication creating real and coordinated service across retail channel offers – stores, web sites and now increasingly social media messaging.  So, the apparent late discovery and perception of government and public bodies that services need a specific branch of design consultancy seems odd and frankly misses the point.  Good retail design principles and skills when applied effectively surely provides a core depth of knowledge which does not need such ‘re-branding’.   

But, maybe that’s the point.  People are always attracted to a new packaged solution even if it really is just a new formulation of key ingredients that are already available.  Clearly retail designers need to consider some ‘strategic’ re-labelling to compete and get some equal shelf space to their ‘service’ cousins.

Every country it seems has different rates of recovery for different sectors. One common feature is obvious however – survival of the fittest, the basic evolutional principle of being able to adapt to new conditions and environments. Post recession, companies that have the will and resources have taken advantage of competitors weakened by over borrowing and mistakes made in a more mellow climate. In the ‘good times’ over confident expansion resulted in poor decisions on the basics – a good proposition, location and focused investment. For a consultant this could be frustrating who needs strategic consulting when it was so easy to make money?

The new era has forced some hard lessons clear positioning, differentiation, being ready to adapt or die. As ‘change’ consultants this is good news. Previously we were seen by some as an unnecessary ‘cost’ rather than a strategic investment. This reflects an unfortunate limited perception of branding as a cosmetic packaging exercise rather than an effective differentiation strategy to inform and change company vision and behaviour.

In Russia, changed consumer mindsets like the rest of Europe has forced an emphasis on smart shopping – getting more for less. Not just a focus on price but balancing quality, services and experience. Last year we worked with high profile retailers like Azbuka Vkusa, a premium city supermarket chain, M.video, Russia’s leading electrical chain and X5, the country’s largest retail group. While still clearly successful, each company recognised the need to capitalise on their market positioning and strength – their image and reputation. Using their existing brand equity they realised they needed to quickly adapt and leverage their advantage over weakened competition.

The key principle was to refocus and further update their offers to suit the ‘new’ consumer mindsets whether focusing on premium or mass-market positionings. Our work typically covered all aspects of their offers from marketing to product presentation and store formats, refining brand identities and reprofiling accordingly.

Shopping centres represent a tough investment challenge. Successful centres seek to maintain their advantage and centres which had a more dubious location and tenant mix strategy now find themselves exposed. In a tougher market retailers are demanding more for less and centre managements must look at how they can provide the end user visitors, as well as the tenants, a better ‘deal’ in terms of real value costs, experience and quality of offer. Centre marketing and events must achieve better than average standards to continue to attract audiences – shoppers and the right tenants.

Achieving more with less is the business principle that underlies our consultancy approach we term Brand Synergy. Shopping centres represent a complex range of interactions and processes which contribute to a decision to visit a centre, the physical experience of the visit and the subsequent memories and perception. Each ‘touchpoint’ can ruin or enhance the image and reputation of the Centre. Every marketing communication, the architecture and environment, the facilities and, of course the shops, create an impression. The attitude of centre and store staff, the way a problem is handled, can be critical factors in influencing a final perception. Spending money where it counts becomes a critical strategy in evaluating and anticipating how best to improve and enhance every potential brand touchpoint.

Architecture and building development represents a major investment and balancing the costs of design, services, finishes, etc requires capital and maintenance cost assessments. Investment in communications, marketing, website management etc requires a balance of long term brand building and short term activities to promote footfall and sales. We believe a clear brand strategy and driving idea should provide a clear platform and checklist for all parties – developers, architects, centre management and marketers. Brand manuals should be about ethos, attributes and inspiration for all interested parties not just logo, signage and graphics application style guides.

Refreshing existing centres requires a careful focus of expenditure. We typically review architectural treatments using lighting, finishes and reconfigurations with integrated graphic and signage elements. Ideas for themes, activities and events then give stakeholders appropriate concepts for further differentiating the centre. A real synergy can provide true value and optimum return on investment by creatively aligning these activities and different vested interests

Sustainability is a key platform for all organisations, not just meeting new standards in environmental practices, design and maintenance but in brand strategy. For example, it involves maintaining proactive positive relationship with local communities, through creative marketing, events and activities. A successful brand identity should be a catalyst for inspiring key internal and external audiences, management and tenants nurturing and developing the centre’s profile and image through appropriate marketing, PR and events.

We proposed ‘Festival’ as the name and identity for a Moscow mass-market centre to communicate a clear ethos – a celebration every day. A tough criteria but it provided the brief for theming the architecture and centre environment as well as a platform for marketing.We were left to ‘dress’ a less than ideal building development under construction. Through changes in décor, lighting finishes and graphics we were able to create a strongly branded visit experience.

For a city location in Moscow we are creating a new image for a well known existing centre, Smolenskiy Passage. With new ownership the developer asked us to create a new contemporary ambience, replanning the vertical spaces into premium ‘worlds’ for high end fashion tenants. By opening up the previously congested building planning and creating dynamic atrium spaces, it has been possible to introduce individual themed areas. These help navigation and provide mini destinations within the centre. Defining the ‘Piazza’, ‘Mezzanine’ and ‘Terrace’ zones helps navigation as well as inspiring different activities and uses.

Creating activities which can consistently differentiate and promote shopping centres as ‘must visit’ destination are vital. Equally, creating architecture and environments which create ‘must see and experience’ places becomes more difficult and demanding. Creating real theatre and drama using light and sound become ‘must have’ attributes to create real venues which are far more than just shopping centres.

Balancing these emotional and physical criteria with latest ‘green’ and ethical standards provides further challenges. Large, highly serviced, expensive sophisticated centres are not necessarily in keeping with simpler more basic solutions. Outlet centres with less air conditioned environments, simpler buildings and flexible discounted brand propositions are arguably more in tune with these post recession green credentials attributes.

‘Sustainable branding’ should be a truism i.e. by definition a brand must keep evolving, stay relevant and a first choice for target audiences. Unfortunately sometimes it has become just a label without a real meaning for the parties involved. True sustainability requires a constant monitoring of changing audience needs and the market environment with proactive initiatives to maintain and enhance the brand experience. Refreshing the look and feel of stores and centres is a constant challenge – meeting operational criteria, cost, ROI justifications etc. With the growth of social media – facebook, twitter and texting, event leverage and awareness campaigns have changed traditional marketing methodology and media spend priorities.

The unleashed consumerism of new markets led to poor strategy and overconfidence. The global recession has provided a short sharp shock and reminder that ultimately staying relevant and focussed with a clear strategy is vital in all markets. Businesses must be innovative and sustainable in the widest sense and these operating principles should drive business momentum. Certainly standing still will not be an option.

I was recently asked by a journalist about the costs of our consultancy for a particular client. Apart from never divulging individual client fee agreements, I was more disappointed with the attitude towards us as a cost, as opposed to an investment. It touched a raw nerve as it reflected the view of many that you can buy brand development and treat it as a one off cost. A view that I have tried for many years to change but clearly many do not get the message. By definition, branding is about creating a differentiated profile and reputation. Building a reputation is a long term exercise – an aggregate of user experiences which meet and justify the desired image of the company. The true costs are therefore an integral part of an organisation’s expenditures.

Separating out a fixed one off cost – typically say a consultancy fee and maybe some additional marketing and real estate budget misses the point. The negative implication is that consultancy cost is, like lawyers, seen as a distress purchase, a necessary evil. The aim then is to minimise the cost by finishing with the consultants once the concept brand book and drawings are handed over.

Accepting the point that branding should be a company wide initiative, it can be particularly frustrating to work with managements who do not see the value of utilising our wide experience in developing and implementing new concepts and roll-outs. There is a tendency to see the final ‘brandbook’ as the point where the consultancy can be ended and the in-house team then left to make it happen. In every consultancy proposal we make the point we are keen and able to help with such activities but often the budget cost has only allowed for the front-end consultancy on the belief this will minimise costs for the company. This is particularly ironic for us when, without a massive investment, we can continue to act as brand guardians and cost effectively support and direct the in-house team and their consultants.

Luckily, many of our clients realise this and we have long term relationships based on this approach. But some do not. Interdepartment politics and disinterested top management can make the investment in our services of less value when our implementation knowledge and expertise are not utilised. This could be due to middle management pride, pressure from top management and, from our perspective, a lack of trust and confidence in our consultancy relationship. This is to be regretted when we see good ideas scrapped or diluted when effective commercial solutions could have been delivered. We are sometimes told a roll out is too expensive but a ‘cardboard’ relaunch e.g. marketing, print and point of sale can represent a highly cost effective refresh strategy and the more expensiveshopfitting change overs delayed or reprogrammed to suit general refurbishment programmes.

It comes back to cost/investment discussions – if we are seen as a ‘cost’ then our potential to help companies more than recoup their investments is lost. As an architect I often see unnecessary costs on expensive real estate that can be ‘saved’ effectively with a bit of creative thinking. Equally, excessive marketing costs for predictable expensive media awareness campaigns could be avoided with some more strategic focus on effective loyalty database marketing or viral marketing based on clever event activity.

Achieving the best return on investment from a consultancy starts with agreeing a clear strategic commercial brief. Our heart often sinks when the brief is to create a ‘wow’ solution. This can reflect a management’s wish to have a ‘big idea’ as this is more attractive than the more difficult ‘every little helps’ approach of Tesco. Incremental improvements on every front are often the key to success and the ‘wow’ factor is often of limited long term value. Big ideas are great but potentially short term if cosmetic fixes are not accompanied by substantial management input and cross departmental initiatives and effective resourcing.

Everyone preaches about the need to achieve real value. Clearly we need to be better in communicating our real value to an organisation, avoid that ‘cost’ question and encourage an ‘investment’ discussion. I live in hope!